F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. - (1.) THE assessee has come forward with this revision wherein the following substantial question of law has been raised, viz. Whether the Tribunal was correct in sustaining the higher rate of tax on the sales of sulphate alumina made by the petitioner against form XVII for the manufacture of benzoin which is not falling under the First Schedule and is liable to tax under Section 3(1) of the Act ?
(2.) THE brief facts are that the petitioner is a dealer in chemicals, viz., sulphate of alumina. The petitioner sold sulphate of alumina to the purchasers for the alleged manufacture of benzoin (sambirani) against form XVII. The petitioner was originally assessed to tax on a total taxable turnover of Rs. 10,95,130 by the proceedings of the respondent dated November 26, 1993. The respondent subsequently revised the turnover and levied the tax at a higher rate, viz., at eight per cent on the sales turnover of Rs. 1,03,600 and also levied a penalty of Rs. 8,936 under Section 23 of the TNGST Act. The said revision came to be made on the footing that the petitioner produced an invalid form XVII. The petitioner went before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner while confirming the revision of tax as ordered by the assessing authority, deleted the penalty of Rs. 8,936. By the impugned order, the Tribunal also upheld the orders of the assessing authority as confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It is in the above -stated background, the petitioner has come forward with this revision.
(3.) ASSAILING the orders of the lower authorities, Mr. S. Ramanathan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner by relying upon the decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. Madras Petro Chem Ltd. reported in, [1993] 89 STC 438 (Mad) which was subsequently affirmed by a recent decision of this Court in Sree Murugan Engineering Products v. Commercial Tax Officer, Coimbatore, [2006] 148 STC 419 contended that even for the contravention of conditions of form XVII, tax and penalty can be imposed only against the purchasing dealer and not against the seller as per Section 3(3) of the Act.;